5 ms·

Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

17 points by primelens 13y ago

jlujan 13y ago
tl;dr "If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all." I'll take "What is the definition of succinct for 1000 Trebeck"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
auctiontheory 13y ago
This idea of Buddhists being pacifist vegetarians is very Western - it's nothing I've read or observed in my travels around Asia. Being vegetarian in Thailand is close to impossible (I stopped trying), even though it is a Buddhist country.
- srean 13y ago
  Thats conflating two things, Buddhists need not vegetarians, the use of the word pacfism in the article refers to it in the interhuman context. In fact many believe that Buddha eventually succumbed to disease caused by consuming undercooked pork. http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MEL/waley.htm http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MEL/waley.htm
- lake99 13y ago
  Not Western at all. I'm an Indian, and I tend to think of Buddhists as pacifists too. Yes, Buddhism spread with the power of Buddhist-sympathizer kings. But when I look at (what little there is of) Indian history, I see Brahmins being frightened by the spread of Buddhism, and challenging them to public debates. The loser would have to become the winner's disciple in some cases, or be exiled, or be put to death in other cases. What I don't see, looking at Indian Buddhists, is the brutality that's typically associated with other mainstream religions.
  - waps 13y ago
    Hmmm given that you're talking about India, I wonder which "brutal" religion exactly you mean. From the article: "The global climate is crucial. People believe radical Islam to be at the centre of the many of the most violent conflicts around the world. They feel they are at the receiving end of conversion drives by the much more evangelical monotheistic faiths. And they feel that if other religions are going to get tough, they had better follow suit." Same phenonmenon there too "Evangelical monotheistic faiths". They don't mean Christians. Note also the generalized "many of the most violent conflicts around the world". The inability to name the obvious. Why is it racist to point out that islam is involved in pretty much every conflict worldwide (with the west, east, north, south, white, black, yellow, brown, ...), and that this situation has been a constant through history (ever since it exists) ? Islam got started with a campaign of genocide, and everyone can name 5 places the very same thing is happening today. If you study history you will learn that this situation is the norm of the last 15 centuries, not the exception. If people start thinking that that may not be a coincidence, that is a VERY understandable viewpoint.
    - lake99 13y ago
      The barbaric religions, in the Indian context, are Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity. Of the three, Christians have lost the power they used to have, and have taken to subtler tactics, i.e. of brainwashing children, etc. (Take kids on a trip. Stop the bus mid-way in the forest. Pretend the bus has broken down. Tell the kids that if we pray hard enough, Jesus will fix it. etc.) Hindus and Muslims are as brutal as each other. Hindus and Muslims behaved equally badly during the Partition of India. For a more recent example, look at the Gujarat riots. Hindus can be terrorists too, the Government chooses not to see it that way. The media and the people are too damn scared to call it that. Go ahead, point out that Islam is at the center of every conflict. I will not interpret it as racism. I will merely point out to you that you are inaccurate.
      - waps 13y ago
        > Go ahead, point out that Islam is at the center of every conflict. I will not interpret it as racism. I will merely point out to you that you are inaccurate. I actually like the point that you're making, but the data you use to illustrate it is woefully inadequate. Your example, the Gujarat riots. The third sentence from the wikipedia article on the subject : "On 27 February 2002, the Sabarmati Express train was attacked at Godhra by a Muslim mob.[2][3][4][5] 58 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were killed in the attack." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence The aftermath of that is what you might expect. The rest of the article has such little tidbits as calls for genocide being broadcast from mosques, in code, which obviously means that muslims were planning a genocide beforehand (or they wouldn't have had time to spread the code). The gujarat riots were an example of their standard modus operandus : small number of muslims successfully goading a large number of muslims into committing genocide, and losing the battle. I've seen groups try the same in Brussels (thankfully unsuccessfully). But don't worry, they were only trying to get muslims to shoot automatic weaponry at citizens because of graffiti on the mosque (graffiti was related to Europe). Needless to say this was officially declared "an incident of a reaction against religious intolerance". I even know why : because stating the truth had a good chance of making the muslims attack again. Did "both sides commit atrocities" yes. However, one side can make a VERY strong case it was defending itself. Furthermore given all other incidents, from partition and subsequent genocide in Pakistan but not in India to the many other instances of violence, I would suspect that was the case even without the many indications in the article that this was a coordinated plan for genocide against hindus run from the local mosques that got out of hand. I think you see why this is unlikely to sway my opinion. Please, do try again, because I really don't want to think islam and muslims are at war with everybody else, which can't end in anything but massive religious intolerance world-wide. But what you've given as examples does the exact opposite you intended.
john_i 13y ago
The BBS in Sri Lanka are also agitating against the Christian community. They are essentially making a lot of noise along the lines of how the great Sinhala-Budhist ethnicity is being eroded by minority influences. This is in a country where Sinhalese make up about 70% of the population. Hair brained conspiracy theories of hidden population control methods are always popping up on the FB pages of these hate groups. An example is the contraceptive laced toffees that are handed out at the counter of a popular clothing store chain owned by a Muslim family. It's all just mindblowingly ridiculous. People just looking for reasons to be assholes to others.
primelens 13y ago
"But however any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a Faustian pact with state power." This. The basic fallacies of any religious doctrine when mixed with the desire for power makes for a dangerous cocktail.
wangii 13y ago
cool. is Dalai Lama an exception?

17 points by primelens 13y ago

tl;dr "If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all." I'll take "What is the definition of succinct for 1000 Trebeck"

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

auctiontheory 13y ago

This idea of Buddhists being pacifist vegetarians is very Western - it's nothing I've read or observed in my travels around Asia. Being vegetarian in Thailand is close to impossible (I stopped trying), even though it is a Buddhist country.

srean 13y ago
Thats conflating two things, Buddhists need not vegetarians, the use of the word pacfism in the article refers to it in the interhuman context. In fact many believe that Buddha eventually succumbed to disease caused by consuming undercooked pork. http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MEL/waley.htm http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MEL/waley.htm
lake99 13y ago
Not Western at all. I'm an Indian, and I tend to think of Buddhists as pacifists too. Yes, Buddhism spread with the power of Buddhist-sympathizer kings. But when I look at (what little there is of) Indian history, I see Brahmins being frightened by the spread of Buddhism, and challenging them to public debates. The loser would have to become the winner's disciple in some cases, or be exiled, or be put to death in other cases. What I don't see, looking at Indian Buddhists, is the brutality that's typically associated with other mainstream religions.
- waps 13y ago
  Hmmm given that you're talking about India, I wonder which "brutal" religion exactly you mean. From the article: "The global climate is crucial. People believe radical Islam to be at the centre of the many of the most violent conflicts around the world. They feel they are at the receiving end of conversion drives by the much more evangelical monotheistic faiths. And they feel that if other religions are going to get tough, they had better follow suit." Same phenonmenon there too "Evangelical monotheistic faiths". They don't mean Christians. Note also the generalized "many of the most violent conflicts around the world". The inability to name the obvious. Why is it racist to point out that islam is involved in pretty much every conflict worldwide (with the west, east, north, south, white, black, yellow, brown, ...), and that this situation has been a constant through history (ever since it exists) ? Islam got started with a campaign of genocide, and everyone can name 5 places the very same thing is happening today. If you study history you will learn that this situation is the norm of the last 15 centuries, not the exception. If people start thinking that that may not be a coincidence, that is a VERY understandable viewpoint.
  - lake99 13y ago
    The barbaric religions, in the Indian context, are Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity. Of the three, Christians have lost the power they used to have, and have taken to subtler tactics, i.e. of brainwashing children, etc. (Take kids on a trip. Stop the bus mid-way in the forest. Pretend the bus has broken down. Tell the kids that if we pray hard enough, Jesus will fix it. etc.) Hindus and Muslims are as brutal as each other. Hindus and Muslims behaved equally badly during the Partition of India. For a more recent example, look at the Gujarat riots. Hindus can be terrorists too, the Government chooses not to see it that way. The media and the people are too damn scared to call it that. Go ahead, point out that Islam is at the center of every conflict. I will not interpret it as racism. I will merely point out to you that you are inaccurate.
    - waps 13y ago
      > Go ahead, point out that Islam is at the center of every conflict. I will not interpret it as racism. I will merely point out to you that you are inaccurate. I actually like the point that you're making, but the data you use to illustrate it is woefully inadequate. Your example, the Gujarat riots. The third sentence from the wikipedia article on the subject : "On 27 February 2002, the Sabarmati Express train was attacked at Godhra by a Muslim mob.[2][3][4][5] 58 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were killed in the attack." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence The aftermath of that is what you might expect. The rest of the article has such little tidbits as calls for genocide being broadcast from mosques, in code, which obviously means that muslims were planning a genocide beforehand (or they wouldn't have had time to spread the code). The gujarat riots were an example of their standard modus operandus : small number of muslims successfully goading a large number of muslims into committing genocide, and losing the battle. I've seen groups try the same in Brussels (thankfully unsuccessfully). But don't worry, they were only trying to get muslims to shoot automatic weaponry at citizens because of graffiti on the mosque (graffiti was related to Europe). Needless to say this was officially declared "an incident of a reaction against religious intolerance". I even know why : because stating the truth had a good chance of making the muslims attack again. Did "both sides commit atrocities" yes. However, one side can make a VERY strong case it was defending itself. Furthermore given all other incidents, from partition and subsequent genocide in Pakistan but not in India to the many other instances of violence, I would suspect that was the case even without the many indications in the article that this was a coordinated plan for genocide against hindus run from the local mosques that got out of hand. I think you see why this is unlikely to sway my opinion. Please, do try again, because I really don't want to think islam and muslims are at war with everybody else, which can't end in anything but massive religious intolerance world-wide. But what you've given as examples does the exact opposite you intended.

john_i 13y ago

The BBS in Sri Lanka are also agitating against the Christian community. They are essentially making a lot of noise along the lines of how the great Sinhala-Budhist ethnicity is being eroded by minority influences. This is in a country where Sinhalese make up about 70% of the population. Hair brained conspiracy theories of hidden population control methods are always popping up on the FB pages of these hate groups. An example is the contraceptive laced toffees that are handed out at the counter of a popular clothing store chain owned by a Muslim family. It's all just mindblowingly ridiculous. People just looking for reasons to be assholes to others.

primelens 13y ago

"But however any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a Faustian pact with state power." This. The basic fallacies of any religious doctrine when mixed with the desire for power makes for a dangerous cocktail.

wangii 13y ago

cool. is Dalai Lama an exception?